Est (.04) EPS already baked in to PPS per prospective earnings 8-K we received last week. So, why are bashers continuing to bash heading in to today's 10-K/10-Q filing?
Kodak has approx 120 MIL shares treasury stock and approx 600 MIL allowable shares of current stock they could use to satisfy creditors.
Agreed Kid. But there is the issue surrounding post BK valuation of assets. Depending on pending sales of DI/PI divisions, value assigned to the current assets ledger may be significantly modified. Cram down procedures afford various loop holes which would allow Kodak and secured creditors to negotiate with UCC. The UCC may settle and waive if a longer term settlement is offered that makes them more than whole at a premium.
Debt to equity swap. Unsecured creditors will settle. That 2 BIL number you are tossing around is largely subject to compromise, and is highly volatile. If the current BOD wants to retain ownership, they may want to settle UCC claims via dilution to maintain ownership of the company.
There has been much speculation concerning the following line (in RED) from recent SEC filings. However, if we read this line in context, with a focus on the preceding line (in BLUE), it appears many may have misunderstood the message Kodak is sending altogether.
Is it possible many have misconstrued this, and that what Kodak is actually saying it is "unlikely" they will make any "distributions on account of the stock" to bondholders via liquidation of existing common?
IMHO this misunderstanding by retail investors may not have been misunderstood by more savvy investors; which would explain the lack of recent movement with the bonds to coincide with the the recent increase in common stock volume and PPS.
"[color=Blue]All prepetition claims against the Debtors will likely be subject to compromise in our plan of reorganization and the nature and amount of distributions to prepetition creditors is highly speculative at this time.[/color] [color=Red]Additionally, it is unlikely that we will propose to make any distribution on account of the stock of the Company in connection with our plan of reorganization. [/color] The plan of reorganization will be accompanied by a disclosure statement approved by the Bankruptcy Court and will provide “adequate information” (as used in the Bankruptcy Code) to those stakeholders entitled to vote on the plan of reorganization."
It is also worth noting that several assets, namely PI/DI division, may be undervalued under Current Assets due to poor EBITDA. Now, the only ways I foresee this changing in favor of current Shareholders would be a valuation hearing (unlikely), or perhaps even more likely is the sales of either (or both) of these divisions at a price exceeding the current valuation allocated on the ledger.
I respectfully disagree. While your assertion may prove true, a thorough examination of the latest MOR ledger depicting Current Shareholder Equity (Deficit) reveals another potential outcome. According to the MOR current (deficit) stands at 1.3 BIL (about 370 MIL less than one month prior). Now keep in mind, the Current Cash & Equivalents row on this ledger depicts US cash position of 330 MIL ONLY. The remaining 750 worldwide cash position is NOT reflected in current Assets. Of additional significance is found within the Liabilities section where Liability Subject to Compromise remain at 2.9 BIL. If this row does in fact reflect the 2.8 BIL unsecured claim filed by the KPP trustee in NOV of 2012, then this number could be modified rather abruptly via successful settlement. As I recall, the amount owed by Kodak to the KPP, as per most recent settlement, stood at approx 1.2 BIL.
Excerpts from Docket # 3412
02/21/2013 Jeannette Braun
Research precedent treatment of equity on emergence
(.50); finalize emergence summaries to reflect
comments from H. Coleman (.40).
Why research precedent on cancellation when this is to be expected? Seems to me a precedent would be required for preservation; especially when certain unsecured creditors had settled.
These cautionary statements are to minimize liability, that is a given. There is no way to no what Kodak's intent is at this point, nor to know if their POR will even be accepted by the creditors, or the court for that matter. That said, if Kodak BOD submits a POR including preservation of existing common, they would most assuredly need a precedent.
I have read all the speculation concerning the alleged early reporting of FY 12 and Q4 12 results. And, with a closer look at the SEC filings, appears PEIX had only filed an 8-K on WED night and NOT the 10-K and 10-Q, respectively. So, it would seem reasonable to assume PEIX will file these documents on MON APR 1 AH as originally scheduled.
Per 8-K proposed .52 Warrant Price is subject to adjustment for stock splits. In other words, as I understand it, if PEIX shareholders approve a 5-for-1 RS, the .52 exercise price then becomes 3.64.(i.e. .52 x 5).
Quote from 8-K: "The exercise price of the Warrants is subject to adjustment for stock splits"
Can all of the questioning on this board concerning timing of warrant issue, in relation to potential R/S, be put to rest now?